Two of the more controversial issues in the New York public eye at the moment, hydrofracking for natural gas and expanding Las Vegas-style casinos beyond those run by native tribes, share something fundamental: Both rely on exploitation as a business model.

Hydrofracking exploits the environment to offer huge profits for a few at the expense of the many. More casinos would prey on human frailities, especially those of our more economically vulnerable citizens, also offering huge profits for a few at the expense of the many.

In neither case is it clear who will make the big money, whether they are even New Yorkers, while in both instances the inevitable consequences will rain all over grassroots New York. While great technicolor riches and jobs, jobs, jobs are promised, the experiences of adjoining states that have gone down these roads show us a far more tempered reality. Pennsylvania, for example, has demonstrated the high cost of fracking on the environment.

As for gambling, "More casinos is no economic silver bullet for us," asserts state Sen. Roy McDonald, who sits on one of the legislative committees that oversees gaming in New York.

The connection between these exploitive industries came to mind when I read what Governor Cuomo said during his first online chat with New Yorkers. He noted that "we have made much progress here in just the last nine months (the tenure of his administration). New York is open for business in more ways than one."

"Open for business" is one of those catchy political slogans that doesn't mean squat, but that we're all in favor of. Of course we want more business in the state, and creating a better climate will come with costs; we know that. But how much is too much in our zeal to grease the skids of industry? When we begin courting exploitation, which is really not much more than self abuse, haven't we gone too far?

Let's talk here about casino gambling.

A couple of polls show a majority of New Yorkers favor a constitutional amendment to allow non-native casinos in the state.

That is to say, the majority favors such an amendment as an abstract idea, because to my knowledge, there is no language yet for what an amendment would include. Not surprisingly, an army of devils would be at work in those details.

I'm looking at the Siena College poll, the more recent of two, which shows some public contradiction and apprehension on the subject of more casinos, even as the amendment concept is endorsed. A majority also found we have enough outlets for gambling in the state and don't need more, and a majority was convinced there would be an increase in crime and social problems.

Overwhelmingly, the public's motivation to create more casinos comes from the belief, right or wrong, that they will bring more jobs and significant income to the state.

Not surprisingly, those pushing for casinos are heartened by the poll. "We're just beginning the process of letting people know the economic advantages of enhanced gaming. We believe that once New Yorkers know all of the facts, this significant level of support will become an overwhelming level of support," predicted James Featherstonhaugh, who heads the New York Gaming Association.

I would humbly disagree.

I believe that it is easy for affable New Yorkers to see nothing wrong with gambling in the abstract, but more and more doubts will creep in once we get constitutional amendment language and the so-far quiet opponents begin hammering away on the many weaknesses of the pro-casino argument. I think that right now we're seeing the high-water mark of public support.

There is plenty of evidence to show, for example, that in a mature gambling market, an infusion of new gaming facilities will prove more troublesome than helpful to local economies. And New York is in just such a market, surrounded by casinos in other states and with a bunch of in-state ones as well.

There's wide agreement that a constitutional amendment is the right and proper democratic way to approach the issue. Let the people decide in a straight-up referendum, as well as indirectly by the positive actions of two separately elected legislatures required to get the measure on the ballot. What that amendment says will be eagle-eyed by everyone with an interest.

As the governor has rightly pointed out, we already have gaming in New York. That's not the question anymore. But if we are to expand casinos, what protections or considerations are we going to give existing race tracks, the racinos, the OTB facilities, even the native-run casinos that were offered exclusive franchises in part as a form of reparation for historical mistreatment?

A good example of the scrutiny the constitutional amendment language will get comes from Senator McDonald, who represents Saratoga County, home of the most successful and fabulous thoroughbred race course in the country as well as the most successful racino in the state.